1. The decision subject to review shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff (defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

3. The commencement of a new trial; and

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The farmland distribution, etc. with respect to the instant military land is 1) Gyang-si 3,332 square meters prior to V (hereinafter “instant land”).

(B) 300,000 square meters of the location of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Seoul, C, and Gyeonggi-gun (hereinafter “instant military land”).

The first answer was the Japanese colonial period, which was enforced by Japan during the Japanese colonial period from 1941 to 1943, and completed the registration of ownership transfer or the registration of ownership transfer in the name of "YAAP". However, although most of the land including the land in this case was actually used as a military land and was cultivated as farmland by the previous farmers, and farmers were continuously leased and cultivated in the previous land from the new construction corporation, etc. Even after the tidal wave. As to the land in this case, the deceased leased and cultivated the land in this case from the new construction corporation, etc. after August 15, 1945, the Farmland Reform Act was promulgated on June 21, 1949, and the farmland distribution procedure was implemented from the plaintiff to the 1950th anniversary of the 1950 to the 1952th of the 1950th of the 1950th of the 195 local law, the plaintiff did not claim the ownership of the land in this case.

B. 26 persons, including the deceased who possessed and cultivated the farmland E in Ansan-si around February 1964 (hereinafter “the deceased, etc.”) who filed a civil lawsuit against farmers and filed ownership transfer registration accordingly.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff, claiming that part of the military land of this case was distributed as farmland and received repayment rice, and simultaneously implemented the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer. The plaintiff filed a claim against the deceased, etc. on December 31, 1965 in the case No. 65A2073, the first instance court.